Narberth Planning Commission flags scale, setbacks and parking concerns for 714 Montgomery Avenue sketch plan

The Narberth Planning Commission reviewed a tentative sketch plan July 6 for 714 Montgomery Avenue — the site that includes the historic Price House — and told the applicant team the current drawings leave too many open zoning and design questions to advance without revision.

Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant on dimensional items central to the zoning analysis: whether the plan measured the front yard setback correctly, whether a required 25‑foot rear setback was being applied adjacent to single‑family lots, and how balconies and a proposed courtyard affect the 50 percent frontage build‑out calculation. Borough zoning officer Kevin, reading from his review letter, warned he “can’t complete the specific parking requirements” without clearer proposed uses and tenant information and listed a dozen technical issues the applicant should address before a later filing.

Why it matters: the sketch shows a four‑story, roughly 20‑unit residential building behind the Price House with ground‑level parking and a courtyard; those massing choices affect shadowing, nearby lot setback compliance and how much parking the property will need. Several commissioners said the proposal as drawn risks overpowering the adjacent historic house and nearby homes on Meeting House Lane.

Project details and zoning issues Developer representatives described a multiunit building with about 20 units (the team said two units would be under 500 square feet) and initially showed 18 parking spaces; they said they would consider increasing to 22. The zoning review raised at least three determinative technical points: how the front yard setback is measured when the right‑of‑way and cartway are involved; whether balconies count toward the measured frontage (the zoning officer said balconies are generally excluded from the façade measurement); and whether a 25‑foot rear yard setback required by the 5B district is being applied along the parcel edge next to single‑family properties or along a different lot line because the lot is irregular and contains multiple principal buildings.

Kevin (borough zoning officer) also noted rules specific to the 5B district, including a requirement that parking underneath buildings be set back roughly 40 feet from the primary frontage line to screen parking from view. Kevin said the plan’s current labeling makes it unclear if that measurement is being taken from the correct line.

Commissioner and public concerns Commissioners urged the applicant to provide a survey, photographs of the surrounding block and clearer elevations. "Buildings with balconies like this are not in Narberth’s vernacular," one commissioner said, urging the team to study local examples and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for work near historic resources. The commission discussed recommending that the borough council or review process clarify the code so the 25‑foot buffer is applied where the 5B district abuts single‑family residential lots.

Nearby residents raised objections during public comment, saying the building is “too big” for Meeting House Lane, that demolition of the rear portion of the Price House could remove historic fabric visible from public ways, and that prior construction generated heavy noise and parking pressure for neighbors. One resident asked whether townhouses or smaller units would be a more compatible alternative; commissioners noted current zoning limits and said changing allowable housing types would require code changes.

Procedural outcome and next steps No formal recommendation or vote was taken on the sketch plan. The commission recorded technical concerns and asked the applicant to revise the submission with clearer survey and frontage dimensions, parking and use data, and contextual photographs. Commissioners discussed advising council that, if the project proceeds as a conditional use involving demolition of contributing historic fabric, the applicant should seek Historic Architectural Review Board (HARP) review to satisfy conditional‑use criteria about neighborhood impacts.

The commission also approved the June minutes earlier in the meeting and adjourned after public comment. If the applicant files a preliminary application, the borough zoning review and the applicant’s updated materials will determine whether conditional‑use review, variances or council action are required.